Wikipedia - 'hypothetical' changed to 'conjectured form'

[Jarvamundo]

Just an observation, I usually (after inspiration from don scott) refer people to wiki pedia and just point out that when you talk about "dark matter" you are talking about "hypothetical matter".

Just noticed wiki has now changed the words "hypothetical" to "conjectured form". Yes same meaning, but to a layman contains a different argumentative weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a conjectured form of matter that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation.[1]

I also noticed they have yet to update the summary of this that comes up in the disambiguation of "Dark Matter" from their search results...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matte ... biguation)

Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects.

I wonder how long until this is changed to the new "conjectured form" approach.

[solrey]

Same meaning?

Hypothesis: A tentative theory or supposition provisionally adopted to explain certain facts, and to guide in the investigation of others; hence, frequently called a working hypothesis.

Conjecture: An opinion, or judgment, formed on defective or presumptive evidence; probable inference; surmise; guess; suspicion.

I'd say dark matter is more conjecture than hypothesis, wouldn't you?

Interesting that little backpedal there.

[Jarvamundo]

Based on that specification, yes. I've searched others with mixed results.

But my comments were more towards a laymans interpretation of the two words, in passing conversation.... I guess we moving towards interpretations of language and experience of that in group circles... personal interpretations and experiences of vocabulary use.

"Dark matter is hypothetical matter"
"Dark matter is conjectured form of matter"

2nd one just sounds a little more "sciency" to me... hey personal opinion i guess.

Anyways... just an observation of the change. Specific clarification noted.

[Grey Cloud]

'Conjured' would be more like it.

[jjohnson]

Good comeback, Grey Cloud. To me, conjecture comes closer to a correct cast or slant on the talk about dark matter. It doesn't rate quite the quality of candidacy for being turned into a theory that "hypothesis" does. Sorry, Jarvo, but since hy-po-the-ti-cal has 6 syllables, and kon-jek-chur hase a mere 3, hypothetical through both numeracy and ability to nuance Greek roots, must surely seem much more "scientific" sounding (i.e., unfortunately, pompous and mysterious) than does naked conjecture.
If simplification of verbiage is to be admired, however, single-syllable "guess" would rate high on my list of Preferred Adjectives Describing Dark Matter.
As the wag said, "Ah, English...bless its mealy mouth!"

[Jarvamundo]

I've since read up on the introduction and history of "conjectured form" (main cos i'd never seen the term before).

Essentially it has it's roots in mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture

Conjecture is contrasted by hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds.

jj and grey you are spot on

Hypothetical --> Hypothesis --> a testable statement

Conjectured Form --> Mathematically appears correct but not tested

It would seem we could add Dark Matter to the list of "famous conjectures".

Very interesting back pedal by wiki, fuel for the anti Dark Matter argument indeed.

Stand corrected, which was the catalyst to read further,
Cheers,
Alex

[Grey Cloud]

Isn't 'conjecture' used in the legal world as akin to 'hearsay'?

[keeha]

I'm all for the change. As we know electrical plasma theories are more open to actual testing and experimental hypothesis.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture

conjecture
late 14c., from L. conjectura "conclusion, interpretation," from conjectus, pp. of conicere "to throw together," from com- "together" + jacere "to throw." Originally of interpretation of signs and omens; sense of "forming of opinion without proof" is 1530s.

And as mentioned above, the word provokes in me some association with the actions of a political pundit or magician waving his wand to fool people.

[CTJG 1986]

I also noticed they have yet to update the summary of this that comes up in the disambiguation of "Dark Matter" from their search results...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Matte ... biguation)

Dark matter is a hypothetical type of matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects.

I wonder how long until this is changed to the new "conjectured form" approach.

Well they didn't change it to 'conjectured form', they just eliminated that form of vocabulary altogether...

Dark matter is matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects.

Now it implies it really does exist and isn't hypothetical or a 'conjectured form' at all.

But generally I do agree with the new definition.

[solrey]

Check this gatekeeping action out:

Edit history for Revision history of Dark Matter

20:05, 17 March 2010 Chetvorno (talk | contribs) (70,817 bytes) (Added that its presence is hypothesized to account for mass discrepancies between gravitational measurements and those based on visible objects, and added supporting citation)

00:02, 6 April 2010 ScienceApologist (talk | contribs) (72,449 bytes) (clean up first paragraph.)

And the most recent (no reason given, btw) edit to Revision history of Dark Matter (disambiguation)

23:55, 5 April 2010 ScienceApologist (talk | contribs) (1,039 bytes)

And the edits to both pages were just seven minutes apart while obfuscating an explanation for eliminating any wording casting doubt on the existence of dark matter. Dishonest coward.
With gatekeepers like that running amok it's no wonder wikipedia has fallen into ill-repute. Narrow minded self-important people like that have ruined what was a good idea and turned it into an impenetrable temple of dogma.
screw em

[CTJG 1986]

ScienceApologist is just one of a number of biased editors that engage in unethical behavior on Wiki. In his particular case myself and 11 other individuals I know of for sure have launched complaints about his biased edits in the recent past that have been completely and totally ignored by Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a joke that started out as a serious venture, but I foresaw it becoming a joke a long time ago and have never put much stock in Wiki's. Anyone that uses Wikipedia as a primary source for serious scientific information gets an automatic write-off in my books, as they always have.

Either Wikipedia doesn't care about the behavior of these individuals such as ScienceApologist or they support the behavior, either way I have nothing good to say about Wikipedia and it's operators these days and avoid using Wiki for anything except laughing at it's attempts to appear legitimate.

[Jarvamundo]

Ahh yes... the advantage of a church who can update their digital bible without you knowing...

(no offense to the spiritually inclined, but we can now see the power and stealth of such tools)

It's concerning to note, todays Gen-y'ers copy and paste their school assignments from this source, they grow up with this authority engrained...

[mharratsc]

Very true, Jarvamundo. I have a kid that age, and have had a long, long talk with her about it. Thankfully, she is an artist and really doesn't have to worry about the data posted on the site. Actually told her to go ahead and use it just simply because her fool of a science teacher believes the site to be absolute Gospel...

Mike H.